The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Arts
Wednesday, September 21, 2016 — 5A
Helen Mirren appears on
screen first, ready to introduce
the 51st season of “Documentary
Now!” as VHS documentary-
esque
music
plays on in the
background,
almost
as
if
to
prepare
the
audience
for
an
actual
production.
Unlike
short,
comedic
skits
that go for the
punchline almost
immediately,
“Documentary
Now!”
is
invested
in
recreating scene-for-scene the
documentaries
that
they’re
concurrently choosing to roast
any given week. And because
of that, this IFC gem has been
taking the world of comedic
television by storm.
Attention to detail is the most
closely associated comment for
Fred Armisen (“Portlandia”)
and Bill Hader’s (“Trainwreck”)
mockumentary
series
as
it
faithfully reconstructs some of
the most famous documentaries
of the past several decades.
However, on this note, the
series creates its own spin on
the
original
documentaries
by adding in absurd situations
that could only arise from the
creative minds of “Saturday
Night Live” alumni. Recurring
jokes, reminiscent of “SNL,”
almost make it easy to forget
that “Documentary Now!” is
a separate entity from NBC’s
long-standing comedy beehive.
However, while “SNL” aims
to
produce
quick
laughs
from their viewers through
the use of obvious props and
discussions on character flaws,
the mocking nature that comes
from “Documentary Now!” is
subtler — often coming from a
quick wink or raised eyebrow
from Hader and Armisen, or
jokes that blend
seamlessly
into
the
environment
the
duo
has
transformed
into
their stage. Hader
and
Armison’s
choice to distance
themselves
from
their alma mater is
a step in the right
direction, as the
hard work that goes into their
low-key jibes clearly pays off in
the long run.
As November fast approaches
and election season looms over
America, the obvious choice for
the premiere of “Documentary
Now!” was a parody of the 1993
documentary “The War Room,”
which followed Bill Clinton’s
’92 campaign for presidency
through two of his top staffers,
James Carville and George
Stephanopoulos.
This
gives
Hader the chance to revisit his
uncanny Carville impression,
a popular “Weekend Update”
character during his years as
an “SNL” regular. Meanwhile,
Armisen takes on the role of a
young George Stephanopoulos
persona,
Alvin
Panagoulis,
who flaunts his presence in the
campaign.
In the parody titled “The
Bunker,” Hader plays up the
ruthless
Southerner
and
Carville-inspired
Teddy
Redbones,
who
agressively
pushes his candidate in a
gubernatorial election though
the use of false accusations
and placing racially insensitive
jockeys on the front lawns of
their opponent’s supporters. It’s
obvious that he’ll do just about
anything to get his candidate
elected, including taking a
bullet to the leg and placing
the blame on the opponent.
In
this
respect,
Armisen’s
Panagoulious plays the same
part,
which
is
hilariously
executed
by
comments
regarding his attractiveness.
“I feel like I’m shy….” Armisen
dreamily
recalls
with
a
hand gracing his cheek, no
doubt a silent reference to a
young Stephanopoulos. Both
Redbones and Panagoulious
are
sharply
juxtaposed
by
their candidate, Ben Herndon
(Van Epperson, “The Green
Mile”), who refuses to exploit
the secrets of his opponent
for his own selfish gain after
a moment of prayer and self-
reflection. In fact, Herndon
furthers his attempts at being
the
unpopular
candidate
through a general indifference
in the election itself, being
more concerned about taking
one’s shoes off on his carpet
than the polling numbers. In
the end, it’s Hader’s character
that’s filled to the brim with
emotional outbursts — from
weeping at an election speech
to his impassioned persona in
the election headquarters.
Although there’s a missed
opportunity in the lack of
commentary on this year’s
electoral
campaign,
it’s
probably for the best to keep
the world of mockumentaries
separate from the pressures
of modern politics. If there’s
any takeaway message coming
from “The Bunker,” it’s that
“Documentary Now!” is back,
and it’s bolder than ever.
IFC
Looks like some mansplaining is going on here.
MEGAN MITCHELL
Daily Arts Writer
A-
Documentary Now!
Season 2 Premiere
IFC
Wednesdays at 10
Irreverent ‘Documentary
Now!’ season premiere
TV REVIEW
IFC’s sleeper hit from SNL alumni rings in second season
with parody of 1993 documentary “The War Room”
Film Column: Age 13, ripe for
the screen
It’s not easy being 13. And
that comes as a surprise to no
one who has ever been that age.
There is nothing as emotionally
raw as being on the cusp of
adulthood, fighting against the
contrary instincts that tell you
to simultaneously grow up and
stay young.
Few
other
years
in
my
(admittedly short) life warrant
such a strong reaction as 13.
I can see myself so clearly at
that age, wearing pink jeans,
listening to Green Day and
getting
unwanted
attention
from eighth grade boys because
I got boobs before everyone
else.
If
the
emotional
content
of time really is plastic, then
I was 13 for a decade. The
limbo between childhood and
adulthood in my memory feels
infinite. Thirteen holds my first
kiss and my first period, my
first boyfriend breakup and my
first best friend breakup.
Capturing all that is a lot to
ask of a 90-minute movie. The
range and intensity of emotions
is unlike any other time in life.
I’ve seen many movies that try
to look like 13, and fewer that
try to feel like 13. Almost none
of them succeed in either quest.
There is no other film in
my memory that captures the
inexplicable feeling of 13-ness
as Ira Sach’s “Little Men.” No
other film has been able to
drive to the heart of youth with
the same level of reverence and
poignancy.
The beauty of “Little Men”
comes in its ability to recreate
that age for an audience of
people who are not 13, and
does so respectfully. It would
be, and is, so easy to mock
adolescence — a age that is ripe
with the sort of awkwardness
and vulnerability that comedy
thrives on. That’s not to say
“Little Men” isn’t funny — it is
— but its humor comes from its
two young protagonists, not at
them.
A scene in which a boy
struggles to form a coherent
answer to a question about
poetry is especially moving. It’s
so mundane, the way he trips
over his words and how hard he
tries to make sense of something
(unrequited love) that he won’t
understand for years — if ever.
That grasping at adulthood that
Sachs captures so gracefully is,
for me, the key piece missing
from other representations of
this age.
And perhaps I’m so hung
up on adolescence because,
in addition to it being such
a formative age in my life, I
know a lot of people that age.
I’ve committed the past three
summers of my life (and at least
the next one) to working with
kids that age. I’ve seen first
hand what it looks and sounds
and feels (and smells) like to be
13. And it looks a whole lot like
what Sachs has created.
And I think of all the 13-year-
olds I know and I think of the
representations of themselves
they are being presented with
— movies about romance and
girl fights and bullying. The
kind of movies I saw at 13 that
made me wonder: why do I
not look like that or feel like
that or talk like that, why does
my life not look like that? For
example, “The Lizzie McGuire
Movie” is supposed to take
place
after
Lizzie’s
middle
school graduation. If anything
is the opposite of the reality of
middle school, it’s navigating
a foreign city and seducing an
older man in order to become
an international pop star. That’s
crazy. That’s not what 13 looks
like. (I acknowledge that “The
Lizzie McGuire Movie” is a
classic of American cinema and
an all around great time, but
come on.)
In addition to Lizzie on the
back of a Vespa, I want these
kids to see these two boys, Jake
and Tony, who, much like myself
at that age, have not quite grown
into their own bodies. The way
they talk to each other and play
with each other. The way they
love each other in a way that
only 13-year-olds can love each
other. The realism that pumps
through their every line and
movement.
I think it was the novelty
of this realism that moved me
so much. That’s why I found
myself getting teary-eyed as
Jake and Tony slung their out-
of-control arms around each
other. It’s why I cried when they
sat in the park and talked about
the girls they liked, and when
one of those girls ended up not
liking Tony back, and also when
Tony was sort of okay with that
because he was, after all, only
13.
The facts of the film were
foreign to my life — I was never
a boy living above a dress shop
in Brooklyn and I was never his
best friend — but watching it felt
like watching a film adaptation
of my own memories. “I feel
like that kid was in my seventh
grade
English
class,”
my
friend Jay commented on the
stuttering poetry analyst. And
he’s probably right. I knew that
kid. And I’ve been that kid.
That’s why 13 is an age so
ripe for the screen. While the
experiences are diverse, so
much of the emotional makeup
is universal. When I see that, I
feel a nostalgic sort of empathy.
When a 13-year-old sees that,
they see themselves reflected.
All of that combined is the rich
emotional stew great movies
are made of.
So,
why
aren’t
people
making better movies about
adolescence? I genuinely don’t
know.
MADELEINE GAUDIN
Daily Film Columnist
I was never a
boy living above
a dress shop in
Brooklyn.
DISNEY
Save a horse, ride an Italian backstabber.
AMAZON
Tastes like breaking the fourth wall.
Devastating British tragicomedy
‘Fleabag’ is a delightful surprise
Phoebe Waller-Bridge wrote and stars in Amazon’s new comedy
As a storytelling device in film
and television, breaking the fourth
wall can be very tricky. On the one
hand, it becomes tiresome when it’s
overused, shattering the illusion
that what you’re watching isn’t real
life. Yet, having characters show-
case their thoughts out loud can be
an effective and even clever way to
humanize them, such as in “Parks
and Recreation,” “Malcolm in the
Middle,” “The Office” and “House
of Cards.” Fortunately for Amazon
Video’s newest import “Fleabag,”
the main character’s constant
acknowledgment of the audience
is not only inviting, but also quite
refreshing.
Joining the ranks of other bril-
liant, nuanced Amazon comedies
like “Catastrophe” and “Transpar-
ent,” “Fleabag” is a deeply layered
character study that’s as hysterical
as it is devastating. It’s the type of
show where you’ll be crying from
laughter and then, out of nowhere,
SAM ROSENBERG
Daily Arts Writer
a scene will hit you with an emo-
tional gut punch and a new set of
tears will begin flowing from your
eyeballs.
Of course, this
isn’t to say that
“Fleabag” is ton-
ally inconsistent; in
fact, all six episodes
immaculately bal-
ance
poignant,
thought-provoking
moments
with
darkly funny ones.
Adapted from the
award-winning
2013 play, “Flea-
bag” is the story
of
an
unnamed
woman (Phoebe Waller-Bridge,
“Broadchurch”) and her daily
escapades as she deals with rocky
romances, her troubled relation-
ship with her family, her job at a
dingy café and the death of her
best friend, all told through the
woman’s perspective — her name
is never uttered on the show, but it’s
credited as Fleabag.
At the center of it all is English
actress Waller-Bridge, who is the
show’s creator, writer and titular
star. Her performance on-screen
and off drives the creative engine
that fuels the guffaw-inducing
one-liners and surprisingly hon-
est exposition of “Fleabag,” which
she does through gazing and talk-
ing at the camera. She can’t help
herself, bluntly telling us about her
uptight sister Claire, (Sian Clifford,
“Midsomer Murders”), her reticent
father (Bill Paterson, “The Kill-
ing Fields”), her awful godmother
(Olivia Colman, “Tyrannosaur”)
and her extremely
handsome hookup,
whom she simply
refers to as “Arsehole
Guy” (Ben Aldridge,
“Toast”).
And
while
the
comedic scope of
“Fleabag”
never
seems
to
waver,
there’s also a subtle
melancholy under-
lying
each
major
scene,
especially
during
flashbacks
that pop up without warning. Even
in the quieter, more profound parts
of the show, like in one scene from
episode four where Waller-Bridge’s
character barely speaks, “Fleabag”
makes some compelling points
about the harsh realities of loneli-
ness, isolation and grief. The sad-
der moments are hard to swallow,
but they don’t stagnate “Fleabag”
’s comic rhythm, nor do they blud-
geon the audience with their dra-
matic undertones.
“Fleabag” also stands out among
other television shows for its depic-
tion and treatment of sex. The
online premise of the show defines
the main character as “sexu-
ally promiscuous,” which in most
mediums is a generally stigma-
tized characterization for a woman
to have. However, in “Fleabag,”
Waller-Bridge’s titular protagonist
is portrayed more as a sexual being
than as a sexual object.
Instead of resorting to the spec-
tacle of gratuitous, graphic and
nudity-heavy sex scenes — I’m
looking at you, “Orange is the New
Black” — the main character’s sex-
ual forays are much more real and
frank than you’d expect. Each of her
sexual experiences with Arsehole
Guy, ex-boyfriend Harry (Hugh
Skinner, “Les Misérables”) and a
buck-toothed bus passenger (Jamie
Demetriou, “Rovers”) are awk-
ward, bizarre and really uncom-
fortable, but they help ground the
show. In terms of sex, “Fleabag”
also highlights body image issues
and other sexual insecurities with
a sensitive and sharp eye.
It’s a shame the first season of
“Fleabag” is only a slim six epi-
sodes, but its brevity might also be
its saving grace. The show is mas-
terful in its succinctness, each epi-
sode getting straight to the point
about who exactly this main
character is, her quirks and faults
and how they affect her romantic
and familial relationships. It also
features what is quite possibly
the shortest, most minimalistic
title sequence in TV history. But
for all its great qualities, “Flea-
bag” ’s breaking of the fourth wall
gives the show a distinctive edge,
pulling us into Waller-Bridge’s
imperfect and wholly entertain-
ing world without ever feeling
artificial or forced.
A
Fleabag
Season One
All Episodes Now
Streaming
Amazon Video
TV REVIEW
FILM COLUMN